Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

What government programs would you cut or eliminate?


Burgold

Recommended Posts

Everyone hates paying taxes, but most people want to enjoy the benefits of them. If you could take an axe or a scalpel to the Federal budget what would you remove. What's unnecessary that really bugs you?

I'll start with one that I disagree with myself about. The National Endowment for the Arts could be removed. It's a really small percentage of the government and I truly believe that the arts serve an important part of our educational/cultural identitiy and without the arts we would stagnate and suffocate. Nontheless, I'd be willing to get rid of the NEA and fold the useful parts into another institution or even transfer all its responsibilities to state and private hands. Reason being, the community centers, outreach, and talent is better seen and understood from close in. More, the NEA in my mind should not support those who've "made it," but be a cultivating force for new ideas and new artists (then again, I do think that funding things like the Smithsonian, Brooklyn Museum of Art, etc. are hugely important, but I'm nto certain the NEA does that although they do support tours that make it to those venues).

So, though it would pain me I could see the NEA getting the axe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fix Farm Aid.

Millionaire landowners are paid legacy subsidies for NOT growing crops.

In 2005 when farmers made record profits, the Feds handed out $25 billion in aid.

Part of that included $1.3Billion to people who aren't farmers, but they own land that used to be farmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about the EPA or the DEA. I'd like to see them properly funded first before we decide that they aren't necessary. The EPA, especially under Bush, has been so woefully undermanned and understaffed that they can't possibly do their job as a watchdog... pretty much with the DEA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could probably make do with about half the military spending.

A question for the group ... without searching, how many F-15s, F-16s and F-22s does the Air Force have?

And how many do you think we need to protect our interests?

And how many F-35s is the Air Force buying at a cost of $104million each?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, everything not specifically authorized by the Constitution, so pretty much anything that's not interstate highways or the military.

In practice, that's pretty drastic, so I'd probably settle for one or two programs at a time.

Perhaps we could start by eliminating the Department of Education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, everything not specifically authorized by the Constitution, so pretty much anything that's not interstate highways or the military.

In practice, that's pretty drastic, so I'd probably settle for one or two programs at a time.

Perhaps we could start by eliminating the Department of Education.

Isn't it funny that the only thing they do well (military) is the only thing they are actually allowed to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it funny that the only thing they do well (military) is the only thing they are actually allowed to do.
Are you sure that the government does that well?

A lot of the cuts that both McCain and Obama want to make are from wasteful military spending:

Smarter Defense Spending

John McCain has worked aggressively to reform the defense budgeting process to ensure that America enjoys the best military at the best cost. This includes reforming defense procurement to ensure the faithful and efficient expenditure of taxpayer dollars that are made available for defense acquisition. Too often, parochial interests - rather than the national interest - have guided our spending decisions. John McCain supports significant reform in our defense acquisition process to ensure that dollars spent actually contribute to U.S. security.

John McCain also feels strongly that our nation's military spending, except in time of genuine emergency, must be funded by the regular appropriations process, not by "emergency" supplementals that allow defense to be funded outside the normal budget cycle. This process gives Congressional committees less ability to closely scrutinize defense budget requests to ensure military funding is being budgeted wisely. It makes possible Congressional pork-barrel spending that diverts scarce defense resources to parochial home-state interests. And it allows the administration to add spending above that set by budget caps, bloating the federal deficit. Budgeting annually through emergency supplemental appropriation bills encourages pork barrel spending. The American taxpayer has a right to expect us to get the most out of each and every defense dollar, especially at a time when those dollars are so critical. Throughout his career, John McCain has fought pork-barrel defense spending that diverts scarce defense resources to parochial, home-state projects rather than addressing the needs of service personnel. He believes that unauthorized earmarks drain our precious defense resources and adversely affect our national security. John McCain will continue to fight pork-barrel spending to ensure that military funds are spent where they are needed most - in support of our military personnel and our national defense.

http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/issues/054184f4-6b51-40dd-8964-54fcf66a1e68.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...